In 1986 the Illinois legislature further amended § 1 of the Running at Large Act requiring the owner of cattle to provide necessary restraints to prevent cattle from running at large, and making him liable for damages for cattle running at large, subject to the proviso added by the 1931 amendment.         After those amendments, the Illinois Appellate Court in Hart v. Meredith, 196 Ill.App.3d 367, 143 Ill.Dec. 75, 553 N.E.2d 782 (1990), had occasion to construe both Acts, and finding them in pari materia held that an owner of cattle is liable under the Running at Large Act if he negligently allows his cattle to run at large, regardless of whether there is a fence around the property of the damaged party, and is liable under the Fence Law if the cattle enter a landowner's property enclosed with a sufficient fence.         In summary, the owner of cattle faces potential liability for his cattle running at large under the Fence Act, or the common law if that Act is inapplicable, and the Running at Large Act.

We find the plain meaning of the language "all damages" contemplates not only injury to real property, but also personal property. See Kirby v.Mathis, 89 S.C. 252, 71 S.E. 862 (1911) (imposing strict liability on the owner of trespassing stock for damage done to plaintiffs wheat crop); Restatement (Third) Torts: Liab. Physical Harm § 21 (2005) (recognizing the tendency of wandering animals to not only injure real property, but also to damage structures and other personal property unaffixed to the land, such as: harvested crops, livestock, and feed supplies); Vangilder v. Faulk, 244 Ark. 688, 426 S.W.2d 821 (1968) (recognizing the owner of a trespassing bull to be liable for damage caused when the bull attacked the plaintiffs livestock); Hart v. Meredith, 196 Ill.App.3d 367, 143 Ill Dec. 75, 553 N.E.2d 782 (1990) (recognizing liability on the owner of a trespassing bull for impregnating plaintiffs cow); W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser Keeton on the Law of Torts 560 (5th ed. 1984) (discussing the liability of the owner of trespassing stock for infecting plaintiffs animals with disease). Additionally, this plain reading contemplates strict liability for personal injury. See Robinson v. Kerr, 144 Colo. 48, 355 P.2d 117 (1960) (finding strict liability for personal injury caused by livestock while plaintiff was attempting to expel the trespassing stock); Nixon v.Harris, 15 Ohio St.2d 105, 238 N.E.2d 785 (1968) (imposing strict liability for personal injury caused by trespassing livestock); Williams v. River Lakes Ranch DevelopmentCorp., 41 Cal.App.3d 496, 116 Cal.Rptr. 200 (1974) (imposing strict liability on the owner of a bull when the bull trespassed on neighboring property and gored the owner).